THE CASE OF NELSON HACKET.
THE following important letter has been received from our respected correspondent, the Rev. Hiram Wilson, in reply to certain queries forwarded to him some time since, relative to Nelson Hacket, the fugitive slave, who, as we think, was improperly delivered up to the authorities of Arkansas by the present Governor-General of Canada. We regret that the Western Herald, to which Mr. Wilson refers, has not yet come to hand; and that in the present number we cannot publish his affecting account of another case of the attempted delivery of a fugitive slave to the authorities in Kentucky, and the fatal consequences which ensued.
Down Mills, County of Kent, Canada West, Nov. 4, 1842.
DEAR SIR, – In reply to your letter respecting the case of the unfortunate Nelson Hacket, I beg leave to assure you that I have lost no time in possessing myself of such information as I deemed necessary to enable me to write to you intelligently.
The most important facts in the case have already been published in the Anti-Slavery Reporter of New York, from the pen of Charles H. Steward, Esq., of Detroit, in the state of Michigan.
I send you, herewith, a copy of the Western Herald, which will give you more definite information as to names and dates. In replying to your inquiries I shall be brief upon those which have already been answered in public communications, that have doubtless come before your committee.
1st. Nelson Hackett arrived in Canada about the 1st of Sept. 1841.
2nd. Application was made for his surrender soon after his arrival.
He was arrested in the town of Chatham, on the 7th of that month, and committed to the custody of the sheriff by two magistrates of Chatham, viz. James Read and Thomas M’Crae.
Application must have been made to Sir Richard Jackson, who administered the Government during the interim between the death of Lord Sydenham and the arrival of the present Governor, Sir Charles Bagot. Had Lord Sydenham survived to have attended to the case, I have no doubt the prisoner would have been discharged on restoring the property claimed.
3rd. He was kept in jail at Sandwich five months, from the 7th of September, 1841, until the 8th of February, 1842. From the best information I can gather, he was treated with as much humanity as a prisoner in like circumstances could expect. John Mercer, Esq., the deputy-sheriff, has lately informed me that the prisoner was treated with unusual lenity, and suffered to occupy the yard some part of the time, and that he manifested no desire to break away, for the reason that he had no idea that he should be given up.
4th. He was committed to prison on the authority of the magistrates above named, and on the ground of felony, having stolen property in his possession. So says Mr. Foot, the sheriff, with whom I have conversed. So says Mr. Mercer, the deputy.
5th. The demand for the prisoner was formal.
6th. In regard to your 6th query, I am not able to say “why he was not immediately delivered up by the Governor.”
7th. He was finally delivered over by night, on the 8th of February, 1842, and on the ground of his having taken his master’s horse, watch, and cloak; or, in other words, he was given up as a felon.
8th. He was conducted by Mr. Mercer, the deputy-sheriff of the Western District, to the Ferry at Windsor, opposite Detroit, and delivered up to the custody of Mr. Lewis Davenport, proprietor of the Ferry, and a British subject, who lodged him in jail at Detroit, and afterwards conducted him to the south-west, for the accommodation of the slave-master and of his own purse.
9th. Your ninth question “What has become of him?” I am not able to answer. We learn that on his return to Arkansas he broke away from his keepers and fled, but was recaptured and carried, as was supposed, to his destination. We have heard nothing from him since that can be relied on.
10th. The coloured population of Canada have generally been quiet in regard to the case of Hackett; perhaps more so than a proper regard to their security and welfare would justify.
They look upon this case as one of extremely rare occurrence, and I believe are generally disposed to confide in the protection of the Government wisely administered.
Soon after Hacket was imprisoned, I made a journey from Toronto, where I was then residing, to the Western District.
Hearing that a refugee slave was imprisoned at Sandwich, and would probably be claimed under the charge of felony, I called on the jailer, who referred me to the prisoner’s counsel, Mr. Elliot, an aged and respectable lawyer, with whom I freely conversed; I laboured to impress upon his mind the fact, that the prisoner was a refugee slave, and that, in all probability, dishonourable means would be used to return him to bondage. I urged him to represent the case in the proper light to the Government, which he promised to do. He expressed himself very confident that the prisoner would not be given up. I was quite unprepared for such an act as that of Hacket’s surrender, and knew nothing of it until it was over, and the unfortunate prisoner was beyond British jurisdiction.
To John Scoble, Esq.